perfidy

The first four parts of this series are here, here and here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require. The third post talks about propulsion options and precursor missions to Near Earth Asteroids. The fourth part discusses how to reach the moon, and what to do once we get there.

What Does it All Mean?

What I have proposed over the last four posts is a comprehensive outline for the beginnings of a human exploration of space. If we choose to go to Mars, we need to be certain that in the process we create the means to repeat the feat at any time we choose. That was the great mistake of the Apollo program – we achieved our goal, but to do it again would require another great expenditure of treasure and effort. The four programs I outlined would prepare us not only for a mission to the Red Planet, but for a hundred other missions that we can imagine easily; and many more that we cannot now envision. Once we are in space, new doors will open, and we will perceive opportunities that are hidden from our planet bound eyes.
The four programs are interlocking, and each will develop important capabilities that will be essential for a Mars mission. One of the greatest advantages of a scheme such as the one I have outlined is that setbacks in one area (save the first) will not hinder the progress in the others. The end result will be that lessons learned in all of these can be incorporated into the final Mars mission design, and that mission will be more robust, and safer, than anything we could plan or execute from the ground.

We can leverage our existing launch technology to get more people and material into space far cheaper than we can now. The designs that I propose are not complicated, and there is little reason that they could not be brought into being within the next couple years. Any aerospace company could design the OSP, so long as NASA stayed out of the development process. We should create a not overly detailed specification – crew capacity, safety margins, and rockets it must be capable of being launched on. Then, several companies will submit bids and prototypes. Then, we select one. The military has always been able to get this kind of thing done in several years, and once upon a time, NASA did it in months. Given a high enough priority, we could have these things flying by the end of 2005. The Shuttle-C is even easier, given that nearly every single bit of design work has already been done. We could have a heavy lift launch vehicle by the end of this year if we really wanted to.

Once we have these two vehicles in place, then the ball starts rolling. We develop our life systems technology in earth orbit while sending the first pieces of the lunar outpost to the moon. Astronauts begin exploring the moon and developing the skills we will use on Mars while prototype nuclear rockets are tested in space. Later, an NEA mission spacecraft is assembled at the ISS, possibly fueled with lunar ice, and incorporating life support systems developed in the orbital laboratory. While that mission is underway Mars rovers and landers and all the equipment the explorers will use is undergoing brutal testing on the airless moon; and new experiments in propulsion, life systems and all other useful things are underway. When the NEA mission returns, we gather all that knowledge together, and plan the Mars mission.

What form will the Mars mission take? I don’t know. But there are several things we can predict. If for more than a decade we have been expanding our ability to live and work in space; we will be able to build a bigger spacecraft than most have imagined to this point. An experienced crew at the ISS will enable us to assemble in orbit a more capable spaceship than could be launched in one piece from the ground. This allows us to make the ship safer, through redundant systems; and the mission more fruitful, because we can take more equipment to Mars with us. Whether we use a variation of Zubrin’s Mars direct plan, or opt for a nuclear rocket, doesn’t really matter. Either way, we can take advantage of direct experience in exploring space both on the NEA mission and on the moon.

So what's the timeline? I would suggest the following:

• Shuttle-C by the end of 2005
• Orbital Space Plane first flight in by mid 2006
• Mass production of disposable rockets and shuttle components should lower costs
• Launch life support research lab by end 2006
• Test wingless OSP (interorbit shuttle) by end 2006
• Test land an automated lunar lander 2007
• Begin construction of lunar base 2008
• Slowly increase fleet of OSPs, interorbit shuttles and lunar landers through 2010, add on to ISS or launch lunar orbit station
• Test propulsion and ship assembly methods through 2010
• Hopefully, by 2010 we have better earth to orbit vehicles, and launch costs decline
• Launch NEA mission in 2011
• Test Mars exploration equipment on lunar surface 2010 and forward
• NEA mission returns 2012
• Begin construction of Mars spaceship 2014
• Launch mission 2016
• 2017, we land on fucking Mars.

A key component to keeping this schedule without breaking the Treasury would be lowering the per pound cost to orbit. But I think, truly, that we can invent the vehicles that will do that. If we can invent a spaceship that costs no more than twice what a Boeing 747 costs, and that costs little more to operate and turn around between flights, sending a pound to orbit will cost perhaps three times what it costs to air-freight that pound to Australia. On that cost level, we can move into space in a big way.

Well so what?

This plan assumes that the government would be the prime motivating force behind the Mars mission and all the precursor programs I have outlined. This is merely one sensible way we could go about it – at least in terms of getting to Mars. Getting to Mars is an inspirational idea, and we would learn and see incredible things if we did it. Enough to justify the expense? Perhaps. However, this plan has many advantages in relation to the civilian space industry.

In the 1830s, it would have made little sense to build an intercontinental railroad in the United States. There was no need, because the United States itself did not span the continent, and there was little worth going to on the left coast at that time. Decades later, of course, there was gold, and growing settlements, and a hundred other reasons that people wanted to go to California. The Federal government – for its own reasons – assisted private industry in creating the means for people to travel west to California, but in the process created the means to travel to everywhere in between – for their own reason.

In the early part of the twentieth century, the federal government assisted the nascent aviation industry. First, by offering contracts for air mail delivery which helped early airlines and airplane manufacturers both. Second, by conducting basic research into aerodynamics which was shared with the aviation industry. This allowed aviation companies to convince financiers to invest in their projects with some confidence, because government scientists said it was possible.

These two models should guide us in our thinking about how to approach space development in the 21st century. NASA’s adversarial stance toward private space industry needs to end now. If anyone doubts this – remember the fuss that NASA raised over the flight into orbit of Dennis Tito. Tito was rich, to be sure, but used to work for NASA and was not exactly the least qualified space tourist you could have found. Government can have a role – but it should be to assist private industry rather than hinder it. Like the railroads, the government can sponsor the creation of the means for anyone to get into space. Offering contracts for vehicles and services, we will unleash the creativity of the marketplace to produce solutions. And the government funding will get the nascent space industry “over the hump” to the point where they are as viable in the marketplace as Lockheed or Boeing.

I proposed the two vehicles from the first post simply because they would be the easiest and quickest way to get us into space. But frankly, they are stopgaps. They would get men and material into space until private industry can supply us with a more cost effective alternative. The companies competing for the X-Prize may – even without government help – soon provide us with a better way to orbit. But there is little doubt that if the government offered a guaranteed contract for purchase to the first space capable, fully reusable vehicle, this would happen a lot sooner.

In a future where the government pursues deep space exploration but leaves the grunt work of travel to orbit to private industry, there are many possiblilities. We could see the production of true aerospace planes that can take off and land from airports and deliver small cargoes to orbit or to destinations on earth. Cone shaped SSTOs like the Delta Clipper might take off regularly from spaceports on the Florida coast, and gigantic cargo lifters might launch from floating platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. If the government defines only the goal, any number of technologies might be produced to meet it. Specialization will increase efficiency as well.

And once these thousand flowers have bloomed, there is no reason that they cannot be used for purposes other than government funded deep space exploration. If access to space becomes if not cheap, at least affordable – then people will find ways to use it. Hotels in space, research labs sponsored by universities and corporations, and privately owned shipyards for Mars missions all become possible. And we should not forget that throughout the history of the space age, most commercial space activity has focused on Earth. Communications satellites, GPS, weather satellites, and the like all serve the needs of people on Earth. What other services could be provided if we could lift bigger and more capable satellites into orbit? And any vehicle that can reach orbit can just as easily reach the other side of the Earth in 45 minutes. I am confident that FedEx or United Airlines could think of ways to profitably use that capability. Space technology is not confined to utility only in space – everything that we develop will allow us to do things here on Earth as well.

And once we begin to move into space, there are other possibilities as well. Instead of chemical or nuclear rockets, entrepreneurs could explore the use of solar sails and ion drives. These do not have the brute power of the rockets we know, but accelerate continuously – and slowly. Over time, they can exceed the greatest speeds possible by conventional rockets. And solar sails have the added and great advantage of requiring no fuel whatsoever – just the skill to spin an aluminized Mylar film a couple square kilometers in area.

And when we think of space habitats, we think of aluminum canisters hauled to orbit at great expense. But there is no gravity in space, and no need for immensely strong structures. Some clever fellow could invent an inflatable habitat, taking next to no space in a launch vehicle, but expanding to tens of yards in diameter. Modern materials like Kevlar would provide protection from micro-meteors even better than aluminum does. String several of these together, and you have an instant space habitat; instant real estate in fact that could be rented or sold for profit. If we make it possible to get there, people will create places to go and reasons to stay – that is in our nature. In time, people will travel to the moon, the asteroids, and Mars on commercial spaceliners, and build lives there. Travel in space, in zero gravity is much easier than getting into orbit. In terms of energy expended, once you’re in orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system. Once we build a road over that barrier, ordinary people (like me!) could travel into space, and pursue whatever dreams they have.

If we build the transcontinental railroad, all the things that come after it will happen naturally, and in ways we could never plan in advance. All the connecting spur lines, whistle-stop towns, mining communities, industry and agriculture, settlement and so on will develop on their own. People will become rich and poor, but the world will be a more interesting place. (Hopefully, we won’t run into hostile Indians, though.)